Sunday, August 12, 2012

Most Holy Father,
Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the
Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam
Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we
feel it to be our bounder duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to
put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a
group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in
spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for
granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo
represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the
Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the
Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that
time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the
integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition,
even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal
considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo
and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it
subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already
prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by
the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that
sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent
reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to
nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already
showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of
conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your
Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an
echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual
needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law
meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those
subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the
abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful
divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity
of the Church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the
possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that
Missale Romanum of St. Pius V. so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply
loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was
never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences and was
never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most
modernist of Protestants.

II: Definition of the Mass.
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the
'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice
of Calvary.

III: Presentation of the Ends.
The three ends of the Mass are altered-: no distinction is allowed to remain
between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only
"spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

V:—and of the four elements of the sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears
as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church
is intolerably misrepresented.

VI: The destruction of unity.
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This
may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of
standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic
conscience is bound.

VIII: The abandonment of defenses.
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity
of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.

I—History Of The Change
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass
judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative
Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de
Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed
considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62
juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke
of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass)
on the part of the Synod. Progressively inclined papers made no mention of it.

In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution
Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass),
identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the
Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views
about it.

In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal
promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St.
Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the norm
for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and
that, taken to every part: of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant
source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to
God". Yet. the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was
claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred
Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".

This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire
of the people was expressed, if at all, when—thanks to Pius X—they began to
discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on
any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to
understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless
liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to
Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with
suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and greater
knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor .why, when its many outstanding virtues are
recognized, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster
the liturgical piety of Christians.

Rejected By Synod
Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed
as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by
the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the
Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people—least of all in mission lands—ever
asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the
motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the
Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself
acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears
devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the
Catholic people.

The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire' (pare. 50 Constitution
Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered
"ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio clarius
pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with
this original intention.

An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude
as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the
"normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of
satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.

II—Definition Of The Mass
Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the
"Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the
Novus Ordo: "De structure Missae":

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People
of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the
memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is
eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt.XvIII,20)".

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper",
and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8,48, 55d,56). This supper is
further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a
memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None
of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of
sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the
intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's
presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of
the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate
omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and
therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.

In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the
already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for
this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt.XVIII,20). This
promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is
thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the
substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and
Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass
is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of
Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an
altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though
between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point
later.

The Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable
relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately and in an
absolute sense.

We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or Mass,
The Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table; The
Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy.

As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper
and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of
Calvary, The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the
Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice
alone, in itself redemptive, whilst the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of
it.

We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and throughout the
Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.

III—Presentation Of The Ends

We come now to the ends of the Mass.

1. Ultimate end. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy
Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose
of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and
oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me"'. (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9
in Heb.X,5).

This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the
prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the
omission of the "Places tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface,
which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface
will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be
heard but once a year.

2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated
from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living
and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those
present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper
putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him
in this state but his self-immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has
an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody
immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not
bound to communicate, sacramentally.

3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely
necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice
can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ.
The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering turning it into a sort of
exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it
into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a
"spiritual drink'".

"Thou art blessed Lord God of the Universe, because from thy generosity
we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth
(or vine) and of man's labor. May it become for us the bread of life (or
spiritual drink)".
There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae
"bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean
anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition
of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here,
bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

Suppression Of Great Prayers

In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the
suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae
dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference
to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed
by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice,
from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice,
that it might ascend "cum odore suavitatis", into the presence of the
divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By
suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is
no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding;
suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own;
leading to gestures intended to stress the union of priest and faithful, and of
the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church
superimposed upon the Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger
that the uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation in
the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a
charity banquet.

IV—The Essence

We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there
obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these reasons:

1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex
Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be
united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering
sacrifice" (No.54. the end).

Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to
either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex
Eucharistica" is as follows: "The center and culminating point of the
whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer
of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects thus
replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention
of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has
not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in
doctrine.

2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite
simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which
it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a
single reference to the Real Presence, (a quotation—a foot note—from the
Council of Trent) and again the context is that of "nourishment"
(no.241, note 63).

The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in
the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word
transubstantiation is totally ignored.
The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy
Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations,
as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the
miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and
tacit negation of the Real Presence.

Note, too, the suppressions:

of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with
certain exceptions, to the people, at the
Consecration; of the purification of
the priest's fingers in the chalice; of the preservation from all profane
contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration;

of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on
the corporal;

of the pall protecting the chalice; of the internal gilding of sacred
vessels; of the consecration of movable altars;

of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the
"table"—"when celebration does not occur in sacred
precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic
suppers" in private houses); of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one
only;

of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of
the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);

of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling,
which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur
accipiatur" (no. 239).

All these things only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma
of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always
called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the center of the
whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, Cf. 262). It is laid down that the
altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it
and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be
the center of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn
spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem
to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is
excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the
celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about
sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.

Separation Of Altar & Tabernacle

Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for
the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of
devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention
will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped, bare table.
Once again the contrast is made between 'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety:
altar is set up against altar.

In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species
consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for the priest to
distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted a disparaging
attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards every form of Eucharistic piety
outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the
Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain.

The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly
a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:

a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion
"mysterium fide)" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in
the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.

b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and new paragraph
marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative
one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the center of the page and
often in a different color, clearly detached from the historical context. All
combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.

"To separate the Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating
two things which, of their very nature, must remain together". (Pius XII,
Allocution to the International Liturgy Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23,
1956). Cf. also Mediator Dei, 1.5. note 28.

c) The anamnesis ("Hace quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam
facietis"), which in Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to
my memory.) This referred to Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or
of the event: an invitation to recall what He did (haec... in mei memoriam
facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The
Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem) which will now take
the place of the old—proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages
will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as
the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the 'beginning'. The
concluding idea of 'commemoration' will certainly once again take the place of
the idea of sacramental action.

The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio
institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis,
in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Himself".
(no. 556)

In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the
words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the
modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are
here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and
no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in
whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc
est Corpus Christi").

Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the
Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou
comes"") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same
ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the
expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just at
the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the
former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.

This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation
n. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this
chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comes"", where the
juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real
Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.

V—The Elements Of Sacrifice

We come now to the realization of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which
were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.

In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous
(absolute), hence totally false -from the opening definition: "Missa est
sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the priest's salutation to the
people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the
"presence" of the Lord (no.48). "Qua salutatione et populi
responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae mysterium".

A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a mystery
of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and soliciting such a
presence.

This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to
the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the unheard of distinction
between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass without
congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio
universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the
"sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus
excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that
of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as
consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the
people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.

In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the
following words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a
people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be
made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element
in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is,
the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers.
From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were
authorized to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae, (which
actually seems here and there to have already occurred).

Priest A Mere President

2. The priest's position is minimized, changed and falsified. Firstly in
relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or
brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi.
Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the
definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously
to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.

In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge,
witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that he is no longer
empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated
with the fratres. Even the server addresses him as such in the Confiteor of the
"Missa sine populo".

Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the
Communion of the priest the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one
acting in His Person were brought together in the closest union—and the
Communion of the faithful has been suppressed.

Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his
act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence.
He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.

The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain
cases the alb and stole are sufficient—n. 298) obliterate even more the
original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His
virtues, become merely a noncommissioned officer" whom one or two signs may
distinguish from the mass of the people: "a little more a man than the
rest", to quote the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher.
Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God
has united: the sole Priesthood of the Word of God.

3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case
only, namely the "Mass without congregation, is the Mass acknowledged to be
"Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no.13), whereas
in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is not referred to
except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those
present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in
the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with
himself,'. (no. 60), instead of ones which would associate the people with
Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri".

In this context the following are to be noted:

1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our
Lord", the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age) John,
XIV, 13-14; 15;16; 23;24;

2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no
other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of
grace;

3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of
supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to
the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church—no
longer militant—against the Powers of Darkness—looking towards a future
which having lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.

The Church—One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic—is diminished as such in the
formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the place
of the prayer of the Roman Canon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of
the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all who seek
you with a sincere heart".

Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on "with
the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "'who have
died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with further
obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the
dead whose faith is know to you alone".

Furthermore, in none of the three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any
reference, as has already been said, to the state of suffering of those who have
died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this again, must
undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.

Desacralising The Church

Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above
all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to
anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared,
as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first.

The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without
precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the Communicantes,
reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded
and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions,
destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has
been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the
Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer
asked, even in time of peril.

The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable
omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of
the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of
the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the
only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.

A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission,
when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the
final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite Missa est' now not even said in Masses
celebrated with a server.

The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's
Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime
mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be accomplished by him
and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the
intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose
relics were sealed in the altar, Both these prayers have been suppressed; what
has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double
Communion is equally relevant here.

The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has
been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside
sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple
"table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth
(nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the
Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of
the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.

The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new procedures for
the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and
lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred
vessels (no. 244d); the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming
and going of the priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest
becomes a commentator himself from his constantly being required to 'explain'
what he is about to accomplish)—of readers (men and women), of servers or
laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst
others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed
activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the
first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorized to read the lessons
and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur"
(no, 70).

Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying
Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ,
sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.

VI—The Destruction Of Unity

We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it
deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our
observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation
of ail the pitfalls, the dangers, and spiritually and psychologically
destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or
instructions—would be a vast undertaking.

By Priest Or Parson

No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since
these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to
form and substance. The second of them gave immediate scandal to the faithful on
account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, among other things,
that it could be recited with perfect tranquility of conscience by a priest who
no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character
of the Mass—hence even by a Protestant minister.

The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral
matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal
Conferences would be able to utilize according to the varying circumstances and
genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic Constitution we read:
"we have introduced into the New Missal legitimate variations and
adaptations".

Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be
responsible "for the publication and 'constant revision' of the liturgical
books". The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany,
Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be
translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will
have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was
conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete
situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad
congregations."

The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the Church's
universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the
bland affirmation that "in such a variety of tongues one (?) and the same
prayer of all...may ascend more fragrant than any incense".

Council Of Trent Rejected

The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian
Chant, which even the Council recognized as "liturgiae romanae
proprium" (Sacros Conc. no. 116), ordering that "principem locum
obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of choice,
amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and Gradual.

From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and
experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for
good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went with it, and
which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?

It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as
taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience
is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is
thus faced with a most tragic alternative.

VII—The Alienation Of The Orthodox

The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and
teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from the Eastern Churches. The result—utterly
remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies—can
only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these
ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but
nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to
Communion sub utraque specie.

Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of
everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.

Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the
Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been
taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies
(not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time.
The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding
liturgical reforms.

By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various
groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church
of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship,
morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

VIII—The Abandonment Of Defences
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic
Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among
Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to
exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then
threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully
justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning
given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal "should anyone presume
to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty
and his Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul". (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)

When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was
asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine
decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist,
as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones today.
It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century
threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi, devitans
profanes vocum novitates"(Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to erect under
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defenses of her dogmatic definitions and
doctrinal pronouncements.

These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most
complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all
cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and with that
"unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, what in
earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we see today only
too clearly—to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the
protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched
over the centuries.

And all this at one of the most critical moments—if not the most critical
moment—of the Church's history!

Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only
outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already
tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but
rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have
been given equal recognition.

To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign
and the pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot
but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly
authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the
integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim,
an incalculable error.

Back when my eldest daughter was preparing for confirmation, she and I discovered this document on EWTN. It was a letter written to the Holy Father Pope Paul VI by twelve Roman Catholic theologians, who worked under the direction of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci, among others.

Cardinal Ottaviani was a Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith... the second highest ranking doctrinal official in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Reading this letter was really a life changing event for our little family. The letter is still up on the EWTN documents web site and can be accessed here:http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

Frankly, I found the letter by these cardinal so shocking that I had to read it several times, as I'm sure you will want to do. The letter puts into words those things which I had often felt at the time, but at the same time did not have an ability to articulate (which created no small amount of cognitive dissonance for me).

This letter explains why we now appear to be loosing the youth in the battle against the culture... and in fact the entire culture war itself. And yet.. we are only guaranteed VALIDITY of the sacraments by Christ's promise... not an impeccability of discipline in Her ministers. As Catholic demographics continue to spiral downward at home... our American ecclesiastical leaders pat themselves on the back for having 3.5% less annual decline then that of their counter parts to Catholicism in Europe. At the same time, they never dare to imagine why traditional communities have no negative growth rate at all and in fact are growing way ahead of all other Catholic venues.

This letter, written nearly 45 years ago, represents a prophetic walk through Catholic history in yours and my lifetimes... explains how the new Mass came into existence... and dovetails quite accurately with the words that Cardinal Ratzinger has uttered about the new mass over the years (e.g. "banal on the spot fabrication"... "a community turned inward upon itself".

It was not until about 8 years after my daugher's confirmation that I began studying the roots of the ideas of the new mass which can be found in the English Reformation forced upon the faithful with devastating effect by Archbishop Cranmer.

Anyway... I thought you might find the original text of the intervention very thought provoking.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Next to Our Lord Himself, Gregorian Chant is perhaps the most treasured thing about the Tridentine Rite. I used to believe that I could never learn Chant. After all, I did not really know how to read music... and "those monks... don't they have to study for decades to become proficient"?

But the fact is that if you love the Extraordinary From of the Roman rite (aka the Latin Mas or Tridentine Rite) then you owe it to yourself to learn to love Chant and perhaps even to sing it even if only from the pews!

THE FACT IS THAT I COULD AND DID LEARN CHANT! All you need are 4 things to do this:

The desire to sing the same psalms and hymns that Our Blessed Lord sang
(albeit with slightly different melodies and Latin instead of Hebrew)

Access to a high speed Internet connection.

A willingness to practice a little each day.

A reasonably good ear.

It will help if you have someone else who knows a little more than you do... but that is not absolutely necessary for starters. I was taught a young man who described himself as a "Recovering Choir Director". He had been "converted" to loving Gregorian Chant after reading the Church's various documents on the liturgy and on Sacred Music.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Click here for a DIRECTORY of this series
Before July 2007, I recall often praying and hoping for a day when my family could assist at a Mass in the old rite. Though I do not know Latin... I knew that there were missals which were supposed to make following along easy. Without getting bogged down in the reasons why I was praying for this... I will say that I had friends in other places who enjoyed this Mass in an ecclesiastically approved venue and that I felt that the normal parish fare was not really nourishing me or my family as we needed.

Our dear Holy Father has actually issued several documents regarding the old Mass and they are worth reading, for they help us get into his thoughts on the Liturgy... and most especially... they reveal His Holiness' motives for liberating the old Mass for our benefit.

Here are the documents below. Know as you read these, that it was not due to some sense of nostalgia that the Holy Father, now, at this point in history is drawing our attention to the Tridentine Rite (which he now calls the Extraordinary Form). It is precisely because this form of the Roman rite has been attracting young and old by the thousands... especially in Europe where the secularization of the culture is about ten years ahead of the secularization rate in the US.

This series of posts is to help those who are new to the Tridentine Rite (sometimes called the usus antiquior) so that they may feel more at home there.

I will be blogging about the following subjects: Basic order of the Mass, Why the little red books are good but a Missal is better, What it means to participate at the old Mass, do's and dont's for priests if they wish to encourage the man in the pew to come back next week, What to do when you find you are continually loosing your place, the basic order of the Mass and how to use your Missal, Comparing two different Missals in common use, Digesting a prayer in Latin and in English, Preparing for Mass days in advance, Sacred Music, On Line Resources, How to deal with nasty people who may be at Mass, (EF and OF) and a summary.

Never be intimidated by the seeming complexity of the old Mass. God has you there for a reason

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

We now see, through the writings of Michael Davies and also through other credible works of history, that the root of the protestant revolution was a rejection of the sacrificial nature of Mass. Perhaps we can say that the weakness of the members of the Church caused enough of a failure of authentic witness inside the Church, to embolden a false theology which essentially re-brands discipleship. This new theology is where one believes that all necessary sacrifice was already done... and that there is nothing really else in the way of sacrifice for us to do except simply state that 'Jesus Christ is Lord'.

But we know that even the demons can say that Jesus is Lord... for the demons of Hell give Our Lord Jesus accolade in Saint Luke's Gospel, Chapter 4, verse 33-34:

And in the synagogue there was a man which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, saying Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; The Holy One of God.

So we see here it is possible to say the name of Jesus, know and acknowledge His Divinity... but reject him nevertheless.

This chapter in Davies book contains so many variations of false teachings about the Eucharist that it is not surprising that the protestant revolters fought vigorously with each other about what they DID believe regarding communion at their "services". The only thing the revolutionaries COULD agree on was their common hatred for any sign or language in the prayers of their new mass which would hint at the idea of sacrifice, propitiation, atonement or remedy for sin.

This rewording of the prayers of the protestant Mass at the time afforded a very comfortable Christianity for the new members of the rebellious church. For if nothing was lacking after the crucifixion and resurrection of Our Blessed Lord... then personal conversion was really only a matter of showing up at Sunday service (still, at that time called Mass by many)... and mimicking verbal acceptance of Christ. Thus... pretty quickly (within a generation or two), we see a dying off of the ascetic practices of Christianity and a corresponding demographic implosion of the Catholic faith.

This transformation of Catholic culture in those days... is very nearly identical to the changes in Catholic culture of modern times from the 1960's until the present day... with the corresponding demographic implosion of sacramental marriages, infant baptisms, ordinations, the disuse of the holy sacrament of confession and increase in sacrilegious reception of holy communion. The last of these greatly exacerbated by the widespread acceptance and use of contraception among Catholics... and it's corresponding negative impact on divorce rate, infidelity, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, venereal disease and the 'final solution' of modernism which is of course, abortion and euthanasia.

The only difference between then and now, is that the reformation was a disorientation intentionally fostered by a force directed from outside the Church toward the heart of the Church (the Mass). The liturgical revolution of the sixties, contrastingly, was approved by many at the highest levels of ecclesiastical authority in the Roman Church. Instead of physical force... the enemies of Christ used the very authority of the institutions and offices in the Church to do their damage. And while the resulting liturgy remains valid... it's cultural impact upon the Catholic man is not insignificant. This is not a failure of the guarantee of infallibility... for no direct heresy was initially committed in the alteration of the Mass.Rather... it is a silencing of certain themes and theological realities which rob the man in the pew slowly.This spiritual malnutrition then opens the door for innovations and novelties to creep in... with such variation and frequency that the even the most conscientious bishop can barely control and reorient us back to a theology which is incarnational and which is sacrificial in nature.

More will be said about what Protestants believe in their innovations regarding the Eucharist in my next installment.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

"We must realize that at that time, Davies must have seemed like a fringe lunatic. However... looking back on it... he was more in line with what Pope Benedict XVI has been doing in his pontificate then anyone could have imagined."

We can say that Mr. Davies maintained the ideals of Catholic orthodoxy in season and out of season.

Of particular note is the comments that then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) had to say in a personal note to the Davies family on the occasion of Micheal's death.

I include them here:

I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
9 November 2004

Here is a video of a William Buckley's well known television show taped on Apr 22, 1980. There is a short clip of Davies speaking about 2 minutes and 55 seconds into the show. You will have to forgive Mr. Buckley who sees on two occasions to know know the name of his own Pope. So much for conservative Catholicism at the time. I suppose I was just as guilty of the same kind of inattention... still coming out of the fog of the 60's

Michael, RIP dear friend. I never had the chance to meet you, but I thank you for the sacrifices you made so that I and my wife and children could learn and love the old Mass.